I don’t follow your non-following. What’s incomprehensible about it? Spanish universities don’t have fraternities?
because most of sailors are male, so to be a sailor is a masculine trait
I think of it as a job. Who does the job depends on how society is structured and how the economy is structured. “Computer programmers” used to be mainly female, for example, but things changed. Technology changed, society changed, the economy changed… And today some countries have more female programmers than other countries do, and some people want to paint it as being purely about the level of economic development, but that doesn’t fully correlate (as in the Norwegian documentary thread). Economics is a complex subject.
Do you think being a sailor is a masculine trait?
and to be a pirate is a toxic way of being a sailor
I suppose that makes sense. What do you think?
so piracy is a toxic masculine behaviour.
I disagreed with the first point, so the A => B => C line doesn’t work for me here.
Of course, if criminal acts of violence are symptoms of TM, then that’s what they are. That’s the concept/theory of TM. If it’s useful, great. If not, not so great. So find us some studies of the psychology of pirates, and maybe we can all learn something.
Piracy is not necessarily a “job”. Some pirates might be hired, some others just decided to start their activity on their own, spontaneously. It’s basically to harass people and steal their stuff. In the end not different from killing a woman. Indeed, it usually involves or involved killing people.
You don’t want to answer directly this question because it shows you how retarded the whole toxic masculinity reasoning is. You rather focused on the differences, but the thing is that my example is not substantially different from your reasoning “if rape is something mostly done by man, then it’s masculine. So it’s toxic masculinity”. Your reasoning was exactly that: “if something is done mainly by man, then we can say that it’s something masculine”.
But again you forgot that it’s not about what percentage of the committers of action X is male and what percentage is female. It’s about what percentage of the male and female population commit that action X, and if it can be seen as something representative of that sex or gender, or if perhaps it’s seen as something that makes manly a man, or feminine a female.
Do you think “traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia” is the background cause of the murder as analyzed in the article?
I don’t know how decent study it is, but found an interesting paper online. Combining their study and the article’s analysis, personality disorder is a result of toxic masculinity?
Violent crimes and their relationship to personality disorders
Personality and Mental Health
1: 138–153 (2007)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pmh.18
“Persons committing murder and other forms of violent crime are likely to exhibit a personality disorder (PD) of one type or another”
See my answer above. Now it’s your turn to answer:
Do you think being a sailor is a “masculine trait”?
Do you think piracy is a “toxic” way of being a sailor?
your reasoning "if rape is something mostly done by man, then it’s masculine.
The broad definition of masculine is of or pertaining to men or words to that effect. That’s a fact. A dictionary may give various narrow definitions as well, but the denotation is clear.
Do you disagree with that? Do Spanish dictionaries tell a different story?
But again you forgot that it’s not about what percentage of the committers of action X is male and what percentage is female. It’s about what percentage of the male and female population commit that action X, and if it can be seen as something representative of that sex or gender, or if perhaps it’s seen as something that makes manly a man, or feminine a female.
You’re focusing on the majority vs. minority angle.
Why would it be irrelevant that gender is a significant factor among people who commit rape and also among people who are raped?
Some men do think rape is a manly thing – apparently just a minority these days (in western countries, and hopefully in all countries), but not a minority of a minority, i.e. not at the same level of rarity as, say, chopping someone up into pieces.
How weird! how would anybody serious do that when discussing about common, relevant traits to a group of individuals?!?!?!?
LOL. I leave it here. I think I made my point, that the point is clear, and that the point is effectively demonstrating why the whole “toxic masculinity” thing is flawed. You want to focus on small details that are not relevant, and disregard the important factors like how normalized a trait is. OK, I’m not having this discussion
I wanted to show that even if X is done mainly by male population, that doesn’t mean that X is a male trait.
It’s fun how you guys reject evidence, and while you feminist guys tend to oversimplify reality with your gender theories, then you come up with more complex, fine detail excuses for rejecting evidences.
It’s fun for example that in this threat 2 people excused moms killing their kids because “postpartum depressing is a real thing”. LOL. Psychopathy is also a thing.
Same with poisoning. Women poison their couples more often than men. Is poisoning a toxic femininity? Because most of poisoning is done by females.
Anyway, I will try to resist the temptation of writing in this thread again.
“Us vs. Them” is also a Jotham thing. I expect a higher level of sophistication from you!
Iirc I made no comment on post-partum depression. But I did say several times, and I repeat, if TM exists, there’s no reason for TF not to exist.
Here’s an idea: instead of asking, “what’s the best way to prove TM doesn’t exist?” – which it doesn’t anyway, since it’s a concept, and concepts have no tangible existence – try asking, “why do people talk about TM when these subjects come up?”
If the only answer you can find is “because blue haired Feminazi landwhales hate men!” or that kind of thing, you’re not trying very hard.
I indeed see that pattern in people I don’t have in high regards and I don’t like it. I think it means that the person who use that division lives in confrontation and paranoia. I try not to use it. Usually how I divide or see things is more like “Me vs The World”
I didn’t say it was you. But I saw a parallelism between your attitude and those other two guys’.
I think I already pointed out that it wasn’t about the definition of the term itself, but the intention. Yes, you can twist things for making “toxic masculinity” make sense, and I even recognized you that there was some truth to what you said, but… What’s the intention behind that choice of words?
No, it’s because that’s what is trendy or what is being heard today. They are not the majority of people, but they shout louder than the majority. And because of things and people like these the left wing has rendered unable for any real role in today’s politics, and the right wing is growing because the common sense in this discussions fits so well with their traditional posture, so many people see the right wing as the only option that speaks common sense.
It goes back to a very simplified definition of the two sides.
right: they want to be left alone and not have other people tell them what they have to “accept” in this world. Again, left alone
left: they want to intrude upon others’ lives and force others to accept whatever beliefs/lifestyle they have.
Obviously there are outliers to both sides. The right has fanatics and so does the left.
It’s not as easy as that, for the right wing also imposes their more traditional moral and point of views. but anyway, I won’t side by any of them. Sometimes I like either, then the next time I’m fighting them.
I said simplified, and I said outliers (moral right).
The “flyover” Americans just want to be left alone. They don’t have time to be moralistic (for the most part). But, when push comes to shove, eventually their anger comes out, like in the 2016 election
I’m getting out of here. The feminists already derailed the conversation and now we are collaborating with their agenda by paying them much more attention than what they deserve (and that’s how the feminists become the mainstream voice nowadays :D)
Do you genuinely think any sane person would disagree with that fill-in-the-blank? Anybody here think there’s an alternative answer?
I’ve read the article. It basically says the guy did what he did because toxic masculinity. That’s why I used the phrase ‘moving the goalposts’ - we’ve gone from discussion of the motivation for a rare and completely outrageous event to a generic “all men are bastards” theme.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. Since you’re arguing that testosterone is a major factor in extreme male violence, it follows from your theory that perpetrators of extreme male violence would not have done what they did if they’d had less testosterone. Of course we can’t do the experiment, but we can take a good guess. What do you think? Would Idi Amin have committed fewer murders and kept fewer body parts in his refrigerator if he’d been less … masculine?
Psychopathy cannot be part of normal masculinity because it is a mental illness, and mental illnesses are quite carefully defined so that they do not have any significant overlap with the set ‘normal people’. I suppose all I’m really saying here is “correlation is not equivalent to causation”.
Well, sort of. But that’s just shorthand for a group of personality traits that can be embodied in either men or women. To keep it simple, here are two traits that are fairly culture-neutral (there are a couple of exceptions that I’m aware of, but they’re real outliers):
physical prowess, courage, and competence
ability and willingness to provide for and protect a family
…and we consider these traits to be especially positive in men.
Nothing at all, and I don’t think anybody suggests that it would be … because that is in itself a masculine ideal.
Present company excepted, of course
You lost me here. What statistical test are you applying that makes sample size relevant? We’re discussing set membership. The toxic-masculinity brigade are interested only in this:
i.e., the intersection of the very small set “all people who kill and dismember women” and the very large set “all humans with a Y chromosome”
Aha, they say - the majority of women-dismemberers are men, therefore it appens because men!
But they’re completely ignoring this:
In other words, if you’re looking for proximate cause, it’s because the guy is a psycho. It would be exactly the same explanation if a woman carried out the same acts.
It’s been extensively studied, and we know the answers. Broadly, normal humans can be induced to carry out vile acts under two distinct sets of circumstances. The following two conditions are necessary and sufficient for pogroms, military assaults on defenseless civilians, horrible punishments, etc.
The victim can be classed as non-human, or more broadly as falling outside the scope of accepted moral relationships (there is some debate over what these are, but in theory there are four or five and the competing theories agree with a lot of overlap).
There is social consensus about (1).
The second possibility is that the culture must be comprehensively damaged by acceptance of violence. Medieval Europe was like this; your description of “mass psychopathy” is basically correct, except with the subtle distinction that ordinary humans had been trained to accept and carry out psychopathic behaviour without actually being psychopaths. Genuine psychopaths, in contrast, carry out such acts because they aren’t interested in either social norms or moral relations in the first place.
We’re not. One of the things JP is always banging on about is the misconception that we’re all basically nice people who would never do horrible things.
What’s incomprehensible about it? Spanish universities don’t have fraternities?
Don’t count on it
